2. Kick a man down Judge O’Neil, but make sure you do it twice!
As an English Psychology Graduate, Postgraduate and Criminology Postgraduate, the past 10 years for me have included various criminal literature searches and my own interested exploration of a variety of cases, both based in the US and the UK. There are obvious differences between the British judicial system, and the US. Now, I am not one to say that the UK system is perfect, indeed it has its own faults, but I don’t feel that as a UK citizen, I have ever been made aware of a Judge who is as clearly corrupt as that of Lawrence O’Neil. Judge O’Neil appears to be a self-righteous, over powered and a possibly narcissistic individual, who can be found to take the law into his own hands. What I find disturbing is that the US government appears to be allowing a string of inadequate legal and societal decisions to be made by a man who should not have the power to make such crucial decision with regards to human rights.

Yesterday, I started to look into the case of Judge O’Neil and it appears that the more I delve into the case relating to the defendant, the more I am finding with regards to OBVIOUS elements of corruption. After the initial denial of the motion set by the defendant in regards to the invalidity of the search warrant and return of seized property, I am to understand that the case was returned to the official clerk for re-assignment. Did Judge O’Neil realise people were aware he had made an unfair ruling? Was he starting to realise he had made a mistake and that he was unable to rule against the motion? Sadly, it would appear NOT. Approximately 30 days after the start of the re-assignment, Judge O’Neil was appointed a Federal District Judge in Frenso. Although at the time of the first ruling in 2006, Judge O’Neil was not authorised to deny the motion with regards to return of property seized under the unlawful search warrant, in 2009, he was now a Federal District Judge, with the power to rule on the validity of the initial warrant with regard to the property seizure. However, if we were to consider the ethics of the case of the defendant, due to the illegal search warrant, and unqualified ruling of the initial motion to return property, it is obvious that Judge O’Neil would not be allowed to have an association of the case under potential does 1-20. Right? Yes, of course I am right; this doesn’t take an educated graduate to work this out!
But alas, I am WRONG! It would appear that this was not how the case was to proceed as Judge O’Neil suddenly appeared to be re-assigned to case of the defendant. Funny that?

Following on from yesterday, I have discovered that the unqualified decision to deny motion on the return of property was not only made unlawfully once, but TWICE!?! By the SAME Judge… Judge Lawrence O’Neil.

As an educated individual, one would have expected him to realise his own misgivings upon his decision to deny the motion and allow the warrant to be overruled, especially as he was now acting as a Federal District Judge. As to why he FAILED, for a SECOND time, to rule in line with LAW set by the US government is confusing. My experience as a graduate has taught me that although there are levels of discretion granted as a Judge, it doesn’t automatically give you the right to decide to go against that set by the state?
As Judge O’Neil took a second decision to deny the motion, it highlights that at the time, he once again believed he had power over the law, in particular the Fourth Amendment. It would appear to me, that although Judge O’Neil is clearly aware of the Fourth Amendment, he doesn’t not appear to care; a little blarsé in fact, as if it can be whittled away and hidden under a rug in the court house. As a member of the US’s federal government, should he be so haphazard with his rulings?

I think what surprises me the most is that it is evident that Judge O’Neil is ruling against the rights set by the government in regards to the Fourth Amendment, and yet other judicial members of authority appear to have ‘let’ him get away with it? What sort of judicial system is it that the US appears to have incorporated into a society? I would guess a corrupt one! What was he trying to gain? Does he have a personal dislike to the defendant, and if so, what happened to the elements of impartiality as expected of all members of judicial authority, such as he?

It is speculated that Judge O’Neil was somehow involved with intent to unlawfully search and seize. It appeared that his association with the activity extended his legal obligations. With that being said, there were at least ten federal agents involved in the illegal operation. Not one of the agents questioned the violation of the Fourth Amendment and the Judge’s inadequate legislative pursuits. In essence, the defendant was the victim of ‘raid’ in that the agents forced their way onto the property. As a result of such corruption, Judge O’Neil forced this defendant to exercise his right to silence after which the Judge used against him in his plea to retrieve his illegally seized items. Ironically, as the District Court Judge ruled that his decision as Magistrate Judge was legal.
Yet another case that Judge O’Neil presided over ended in unfair justice. Although it is mandatory for defendants to receive a fair trial, Lawrence O’Neil uses his personal agenda to violate such constitution. The State of California was attempting to define a law that would improve its air quality. In this case, the federal judge ruled in favor of the gasoline, diesel fuel, and biofuels producers, whose methods are progressively reckless for the common citizen.
Judge O’Neil ruled in favor of the producers and distributers; granting an injunction that reversed California’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The District Court Judge stated that the rule was discriminatory and unconstitutional. Of course, the fuel industry felt this ruling to be a victory in that it barricaded the state from interfering in the interstates commerce.
The state of California, however, views this injunction as injustice. By allowing California to control its air pollution, it would have the liberty to promote a greener environment. Following three separate rulings against the regulation, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that Judge O’Neil’s rulings in this case were unjustly and overturned his decisions.
Judge Lawrence O’Neil consistently abuses his power to render his court appointed judgments. His unfair trial practices were obvious during a case involving an IRS agent. As a Magistrate Judge, he rendered a decision that was viewed as unconstitutional. He used his authority to harass and execute an innocent man in the support of a corrupt legal firm. The judge’s fraudulent and inadequate applications allowed the prosecution to threaten and manipulate the witnesses. The man was ultimately sentenced to jail. It is evident that Judge Lawrence O’Neil does not practice fair trials; therefore many innocent people fall victim to his corruption.

Judge O’Neill may be losing it a bit in his old age. This is the only thing I can think of besides corruption. Even if it was proven that he’s corrupt (which it has over and over) his money and age would get him off. He would claim to be losing it mentally or have a type of disease to case such a melt down. If it in fact is medical I feel sorry for the man but innocent people shouldn’t be getting harmed, he needs to GO!

People have the right to privacy and in the law a right to “Reasonable Expectation of Privacy”. Keeping in mind that any person who seeks to preserve something as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected by the Fourth Amendment.

Perhaps O’Neill missed the course on the 4th Amendment in law school which was made to protect people from unreasonable searches and seizures. It reads as follows:

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Legal Definitions of search and seizure are as follows:
A “search” is any governmental intrusion upon one’s personal privacy. A “seizure” takes place when there is a meaningful interference by the government with an individual’s possessory interest in a person or property.

This sums up what is allowed in California when you talk basics. If Judge O’Neill doesn’t understand these three important elementary guidelines of the law, then we have a bigger problem then I thought!

The warrant was clearly “over-broad” and anyone can see that if they took the time to read it. It needs to be proven that the warrant lacked specificity with respect to the place to be searched or the things to be seized such that the officers could not reasonably have presumed that it was valid. Do you think Ioane and his attorney proved this? I certainly do.

About

Friends of Michael S. Ioane is a blog for postings from various authors. We are dedicated to news and information regarding how the Justice Department aids and abets the IRS in criminal activities with special emphasis on the Eastern District Court of California.
Saying Things other People Think!